Post navigation

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On February 19, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On February 14, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. Continue reading →

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On February 7, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Despite the partial government shutdown, on January 19, 2019, TJX has announced a recall of its Aroma Home USB Heated Hottie Heating Pad. TJX announced the recall because the “heating pads can overheat during use, posing fire and burn hazards.”

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Despite the partial government shutdown, Hewlett Packard has announced an expansion of the battery recall that it first announced in January of 2018. The “batteries have the potential to overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard to customers.” As stated on the recall website:

Batteries affected by this program may have been shipped with specific HP Probook 64x (G2 and G3), HP ProBook 65x (G2 and G3), HP ProBook 4xx G4 (430, 440, 450, 455, and 470), HP x360 310 G2, HP ENVY M6, HP Pavilion x360, HP 11 notebook computers and HP ZBook (17 G3, 17 G4, and Studio G3) mobile workstations sold worldwide from December 2015 through April 2018. They were also sold as accessories or provided as replacements from December 2015 through December 2018 for the above products, as well as additional products through HP or an authorized HP Service Provider, including certain HP Mobile Thin Client products.

To find out more about the recall, go to this website. The link includes a battery validation utility that you can download.

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On December 12, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On November 8, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

In Ybarra v. Greenberg & Sada, P.C., 2018 CO 81, 2018 Colo. LEXIS 828 (Oct. 15, 2018), Francis Ybarra (Ybarra) filed a complaint against the law firm retained by State Farm Auto Insurance Company (State Farm) to pursue subrogation against Ybarra. In his suit, Ybarra alleged that the law firm violated Colorado’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it secured a default judgment against Ybarra. The Supreme Court of Colorado, agreeing that State Farm’s subrogation claim was not a transaction giving rise to a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA, held that the trial court properly dismissed Ybarra’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Continue reading →

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 25, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard: